From: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 12:21:33 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: fix step in transition plan
Message-ID: <CAN0heSq52VrEaUxxCb91Adw5YByz=H_r60px9UHbTcQHLb1PmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200813224901.2652387-3-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 00:49, brian m. carlson
<sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
>
> One of the required steps for the objectFormat extension is to implement
> the loose object index.  However, without support for
> compatObjectFormat, we don't even know if the loose object index is
> needed, so it makes sense to move that step to the compatObjectFormat
> section.  Do so.

This makes sense to me. I know I thought out loud before that maybe
there's some intention here and more specifically, maybe we want to
*know* that this loose-object-idx is always there. But we'd still need
to tiptoe around it in a SHA-1 repo, so even if we'd know that all
proper SHA-256 repos have been generating such a file since day 1, that
probably wouldn't help us much in terms of implementation/fallback
strategies and whatnot.

Martin